Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 14, 2011 5:01pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Copyright Violation - Please remove

mandrakes you wrote:
"To be a protected intellectual property under US Copyright protection it has to be registered with the Library of Congress and copyrighted."
I'm not trying to be rude or arrogant opinionated, the angry guy with a big mouth, the guy with something to prove ... mandrakes where can you even get that info from? it's far removed from the present day reality.
The facts are:
The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under
U. S. law, although it is often beneficial.
Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This
requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered
to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989. Although
works published without notice before that date could have
entered the public domain in the United States, the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act (URAA) restores copyright in certain
foreign works originally published without notice.
The Copyright Office does not take a position on whether
copies of works first published with notice before March 1,
1989, which are distributed on or after March 1, 1989, must
bear the copyright notice.
Use of the notice may be important because it informs
the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication.
Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in section 504(c)(2) of the copyright law. Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected.
The use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the
copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the U.S. Copyright Office.
The above was taken from:
U.S. Copyright Office · Library of Congress · 101 Independence Avenue SE · Washington, DC 20559-6000 · www.copyright.gov
circular 1 reviewed: 08 ⁄ 2011 Printed on recycled paper u.s. government printing office: 2011-xxx-xxx ⁄ xx,xxx

This post was modified by jory2 on 2011-09-14 23:36:13

This post was modified by jory2 on 2011-09-15 00:01:33

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mandrakes Date: Sep 16, 2011 7:32am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Copyright Violation - Please remove

I don't think you are angry or opinionated. I am learning about PD and copyright as I go along and I appreciate the conversations here as long as they don't devolve into name-calling.

There is a lot of gray area in the question as I am learning. But my understanding is that there has to be some level of minimal reasonable search that a citizen - that anyone here - can make to establish whether a work is copyrighted or not. A search of the copyright office seems like an appropriate level of research that is available to all Americans. The other option is to assume that all works are protected under copyright and that seems as unreasonable as assuming that no works are copyrighted.

I guess the question is, what should a person do to research whether a work is protected under copyright?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 16, 2011 3:48pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Copyright Violation - Please remove

The response I got to the same questions was, "better to ask yourself why copyrights exist in the first place."

Agreed, the copyright act is confusing. Big shout-out to those responsible for adding the DMCA, the extension act, the Berne agreement, Sony-Bono, GATT/WTO..., and of course for pulling public domain out of public domain, and last but by no means the least, now factor in the World Wide Web.
Bob says: so I can legally use this Work(s), in the U.S. as it falls under public domain. I can publish, display, edit, in essence the Work(s)is void of copyright; but not in the UK, Canada, or Parts of what now? Agreed confusing as hell.

There are countless threads of members going back and forth with legal advise and ideas thoughts and disclaimers of what can and can not be done with someone else's privacy and publicity rights, copyrights, neighboring rights, moral rights, trade-marks, trade names, celebrity and personality rights ... regarding intellectual property.
Have you come across one thread here that even explored contacting the rightful owners of the copyrights to ask about the Work(s) copyright status? I haven't.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mandrakes Date: Sep 21, 2011 6:12am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Copyright Violation - Please remove

Thanks for responding. I am really just looking for a way that I can show due diligence in researching the status of a movie/ film before using it in another work. It doesn't appear that there is a simple checklist that I can follow from home that will assure me so have to fly blind a bit.
Up until now I had thought that works before 1978 (1976?) that were not renewed at the 28 year mark entered the public domain so I have been sticking to that rule, and using the LOC online database to research that. Unfortunately, it's still not clear to me so I'll keep doing it that way.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: OTRTim Date: Sep 24, 2011 4:24am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Copyright Violation - Please remove

I don't know who told you that pre1978 works had to be renewed. It was my understanding pre1978 works remained under copyright so long as they contained a valid copyright notice.
If there is no notice in either the opening or closing credits,then a 1978 work would fall to the the public domain.
Then if it did have a notice the notice had to contain the following: 1)The word copyright or a letter "C" within a circle. A "C" in () isn't acceptable. 2)The year either in roman numerals or numbers. 3) The name of the copyright holder. Also the film would have to be ineligible for GATT to be PD if it's a foreign work.Pre1978 works being from 1964-1977. Works from 1953-1963 had to have their copyright renewed. The 1953-1963 works if foreign had to be ineligible for GATT to be PD as well.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 24, 2011 7:06am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Copyright Violation - Please remove

Why bother OTRTim?, mandrakes (like many others here) could be provided a clear 'road map' with all the markers needed to define the difference between copyright and public domain, and somehow the their understanding is completely different.
The more information provided the more nonsensical the responses become.
The likely outcome of this meeting;
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/topic.jsp?group_id=62
should prove very useful in preventing websites like this one from continuing with further and future copyright violations.
Interested parties can watch the Live Webcast here:
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/webcasting/assemblies/2011/





This post was modified by jory2 on 2011-09-24 14:06:02

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: MrCranky Date: Sep 24, 2011 1:27pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Copyright Violation - Please remove

Anakin, remember how long it took you to forgive and move on the last time. The robot.txt is not worth going to the darkside. Open your heart and embrace the light, Cheesewiz

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jbrass Date: Sep 24, 2011 5:12pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Copyright Violation - Please remove

Dark side? Anakin? uhhh I’m not sure how this relates to the discussion I was just enjoying but ok, you're absolutely entitled. It's really frustrating that whenever a thread starts to turn into a dialog, it gets sideswiped by a comment like this. The posters in this thread seem to at least be trying to get somewhere with the topic and rightfully so. I have a hard time believing that anyone truly believes that ANY entity should have autocratic authority over what artists, writers, bloggers create and how it can and will be used. Jory2 brought up a comment that I see very little of on any of these discussions,

"Have you come across one thread here that even explored contacting the rightful owners of the copyrights to ask about the Work(s) copyright status? I haven't."

Ultimately, it SHOULD be up to that person to at least have a say. And if they can't be found, well I think that’s how books and music become rare, collectable and precious in their original form.

Legalities aside for a second, The world is no less culturally or vibrant or knowledgeable without unlimited and free access to "The Alien Factor" or any of the commonly debated materials people want to post. And websites, jeez..the web was meant to be a DYNAMIC and ever changing medium. The need to preserve as much of it as possible, regardless of what the creators want or think is still something that seems bizarre to me.

It just seems like a morbidly obese (no offense intended to anyone) digital hoard with no purpose other than to take up space. There are plenty of "creators" out there who are more than happy to share and contribute their work without the need for debate, and that may even lend to a much more meticously curated and efficient representation of our society’s cultural heritage.

Jory2, dont take the Anakin thing personal, I think MrCranky's just trying to prove his namesake. Theres always someone in any intelligent forum discussion like that, Its just a drag they often kill the dialog. (am I the only one who notices this…?)

+my vote for contacting the owner and asking, thats the only real way to be sure, and if you're not sure, is there really nothing else to work with..?..seriously now

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: MrCranky Date: Sep 24, 2011 5:58pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Copyright Violation - Please remove

Please don't stop the discussion on my account. I'm not cranky, I just look that way. I needed Anakin post to trace an un-named poster who has misled several people,is planning some trouble and will probably crack soon.
But by all means, if a creator or performer of a work is known, contact them. And tell them you like their work. I've done it and received several mementoes, autographs and some obscure material to post to a venue like the IA. Many performers are nice people, and believe it or not, their lifes often have periods of boredom.
But people should not stop uploading a file just because someone in a forum said they thought it was copyright. The IA has had many well intentioned post that later were found to be incorrect. Even the best resource here has admitted to error. And someone is posting intentional red-herrings. The IA says if an item is found to be copyright, they will take it down. Sounds like the thing to do.
Now a quick shot. "Hey mod'". Sorry, but that is as nessasery as the misspelinks.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 25, 2011 7:57am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Copyright Violation - Please remove

"Jory2, dont take the Anakin thing personal, I think MrCranky's just trying to prove his namesake. Theres always someone in any intelligent forum discussion like that, Its just a drag they often kill the dialog."

Jb - the antagonistic personality (disorder) is common.
It wouldn't surprise me if he had multiple profiles on this site and many others in order to play the villain game with himself.
I don't know this person, so there is absolutely nothing for me to take personally.

The google / hathitrust disaster has drawn a lot of attention to sites like this one as of late.
The up coming SCCR sessions will be very interesting to say the least.
http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: MrCranky Date: Sep 25, 2011 11:49am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Copyright Violation - Please remove

Thanks for the information. It is ironic that the IA forums are being used by those whose goal is to restrict its use.
I have a suggestion, all lobbyists or members from large organizations such as the Authors Guild should be allowed to have an icon next to the log-in names. This would make it easier to understand the posts.
My icon could be a pair of white cotton gloves and a pencil on a few stack call forms. What could theirs be?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDetective John Carter of Mars Date: Sep 25, 2011 9:07am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: orphan/nonorphan works in the news

@hathitrust disaster

includes cool pic
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/09/the-fight-over-the-future-of-digital-books/245577/

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 25, 2011 12:31pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: orphan/nonorphan works in the news

Here's a link from the World Intellectual Property Organization regarding Libraries and Archives and the legal use and uses of Copyright Protected Works both digital and non-digital.
It details what can be legally considered "Fair use" and how the "Limitations" in section 108 of the U.S copyright act apply.
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_17/sccr_17_2.pdf

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDetective John Carter of Mars Date: Sep 25, 2011 5:38pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: orphan/nonorphan works in the news

@Here's

434 pages, 0 cool pics

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Sep 26, 2011 8:25am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: COPYRIGHT LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS FOR LIBRARIES AND ARCHIVES

Nope no cool pics.
Unfortunately not all books and papers come with cool pics. The information in the paper however will answer many of the debates and on-going questions that have been in the forums for many years.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: OTRTim Date: Sep 24, 2011 4:58am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: Copyright Violation - Please remove

Also see Moongleam's post on Copyright Hint: http://www.archive.org/post/355860/copyright-hint

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)